Quote:
Originally Posted by branDcalf
The terror of their babies scream to the cosmos.
|
Hardly. When people choose abortion - as opposed to abortions performed for medical requirements - they almost entirely do so in the first 16 weeks of gestation. In fact the vast vast majority of them are performed in or before week 12.
At this point there is no a shred of sentience and consciousness active in the fetus. There is no terror / fear / pain / experience in the fetus _at all_. The "screams" are not just unheard - they are not even there.
However this is not a thread about abortion per se - but the economics of a model of providing abortion services that is profit based. Giving abortion providers any vested interest in performing abortions for profit or to quote is indeed a horrific model that needs to be questioned deeply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
If only men would step up and act like men when the woman they are with gets pregnant there would be less abortions.
|
That is a vast generalisation that does not map onto the reality of the _vast_ diversity of reasons women seek abortions.
Sure there are _many_ cases where the woman might not choose abortion if the man who made them pregnant did not jump ship. However there are _many_ cases where the women choose it _even with_ their man standing with them every step of the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnOurWayHome
Cons say they want fewer abortions yet are all about restricting women's access to birth control.
Dems actually do want fewer abortions so we support access to and financial help for birth control.
|
Yes I think the political partisan nature of US conversation - which is seeping into the rest of the world unfortunately - stops us finding common ground in such conversations. And we really need to find common ground in all political conversation.
The common ground here is that the average citizen on _both_ sides of the abortion debate wants there to be less abortion. Being pro-choice on abortion does not mean wanting there to be more abortions. It means wanting there to be more choice.
I think if people on all sides of partisan politics could find the common ground there - then the conversation will split from merely being about pro-choice or not. It would split into _both_ sides sitting down and saying "How do we reduce the number of women who seek to make that choice - regardless of whether we believe they should have that choice or not".
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
Therefore, except in extremely rare cases like rape, the state of being pregnant is entirely voluntary. In other words, a choice. Choices come with consequences. If you're not willing to accept the consequences, make a different choice.
|
Similarly then the state of being injured in - say - sport is entirely voluntary. People go into sport knowing they could be injured. What we do however is not stand over their injured body saying "You chose this". Rather what we do is stand with them saying "Your choices lead to consequences and here are the options you have now".
Many people have sex - just like many people play sport. And many people having sex take all the precautions they can to avoid pregnancy. Just like people in sport often wear protective gear. But in both cases the consequences they are protecting against _still happen_ despite their precautions.
In pregnancy - just like in sport - I see no reason to moral high horse them to death beating them with the results of their choices. Especially if you do not know the meaning of words like "murder" and insist on using them incorrectly.
You also appear not to understand the meaning of "accepting the consequences". Accepting a consequence does not mean sitting there and simply letting the consequence control your life. Accepting a consequence - that is to say taking responsibility for the results of ones actions - involves accepting the consequence has happened and take mature informed and thought out choices about how to move forward in the light of that. And abortion is an _option_ that can and should be on the table for such scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
THAT was one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard! There is no way to reverse the results of careless sex.
|
Why are you assuming it is "careless sex". Many people take precautions - sometimes even 2 or 3 at the same time. And they still end up pregnant. Such people were not "careless". Nor were women who were raped or misled by false claims about sex or sexual ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
Abortion is the only solution some, mostly poor and young, people have. It also tears a womans body apart (sometimes to death) and causes real problems later in life for a very high percentage of them. That's something no Planned Parenthood counselor ever talks about.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...49386715001589
|
Did you read your own link there at all? You do realise it supports the exact opposite position than the one you are espousing? Read the conclusion of the paper for example which states "This study describes the physical health experiences of women after birth and abortion. Our results reinforce the existing data on the safety of induced abortion when compared with childbirth" - which is hardly talking about abortion tearing bodies apart and causing real problems later in life.
Also when you claim abortion "tears a womans body apart" what _are_ you talking about exactly? What kind of abortions? At what stages? What procedures? You do know there is not just one "thing" called abortion right? There are a whole host of methods and procedures available depending on things like what stage of pregnancy the woman is at when she has that abortion.